John David Ebert Lecture on Rudolf Steiner Part 1

[VoidNewsNetwork]

I am primarily aquainted with Steiner through his theosophical cosmology, which mimics blavatskys "root races" scheme. The connection of that particular cosmology to Germanic cultural idenity, the Aryan myth, and mystical nationalism seems rather important for understanding Steiner. Could somone expand upon the importance of Theosophy and Blavatskys root-race scheme to Steiner for me?

Curious.

[histerics3]

this lecture is marvelous it is so generous of you to post all of this! I just read "Knowledge of the higher worlds." This is an excellent supplement. Do you have any thoughts on accusations against Steiner as antisemitic? I'm only on part 8 of the lecture, so apologies if you mention this later. Once again, many thanks for this lecture, there are people online that would aggressively market this kind of material and sell if as a download for rather high prices.

[MavenKnits]

John,

I'm in my first year of Waldorf teacher formation, studying athroposophy. I've found your lectures to be invaluable in the clarification of concepts I've come across in "Theosophy" & "How to know" that I wasn't able to take in, namely the levels of soul - sentient, intellectual etc. 

One thing I know is that Steiner never said to believe outright, but to hold the information inside of oneself until one finds truth in it.If we don't remember this, we will fail to supercede our teachers.

[arararpa]

DrKaoliN, I'd opt for a pile of nonsense. And not quite so innocent nonsense. It baffles me how few people realize how profoundly unoriginal his thinking is. Blavatsky with some christian mysticism and blut und boden.

[DrKaoliN]

Penetrating thinking is definitely not popular, I know. You are free to opt for whatever you like.

[KabouterKlus]

Rudolf Steiner, Geisteswissenschaftliche Menschenkunde, 19081909, s. 5:9; "But the people that didn't develop their id, that was too exposed to the influence of the sun, they were like plants: They produced far too much carbon under their skin - and became black. That is why the negroes are black."

Very interesting indeed.

[johndavidebert]

Fashionable talk for the time.

What's interesting is your need to carp on these few negative aspects of Steiner's philosophy. It's the grand vision that you're missing. Everyone interesting has either made a racist comment or an off-color remark at some time, including Joseph Campbell. If we start excluding everyone on the basis of an off-color remark, then we're going to wind up celebrating no one and sitting around hating ourselves for our failure to produce anything great intellectually.

[KabouterKlus]

I don't know Joseph Campbell. Is he also an Aristotle of our time?

[Ioannakis]

There are many ways in which Steiner's work maps onto Aristotle's precisely. A's 'anthropological ontology', for instance - found in De Anima - is arranged exactly as S's 'subtle body':

(i) extended body = mineral body;

(ii) vegetative soul = etheric body;

(iii) sensitive soul = astral body;

(iv) intellective soul = Self

I've had to put this very crudely, I'm sorry. But it is in the refinements of this last category in both that implies the need for an expanded ontology...

[Ioannakis]

Aristotle discussing the divine in man, i.e. self-thinking thought (which is how he characterises the supra-human, the divine) and Steiner's distinct 'levels' of self. Beyond the self, for Steiner are the Manas, Buddhi and Atman and the angelic hierarchy (each rank of angels is the thinking activity of the rank above, which constitutes them). This constitutive aspect is also Aristotelian - since man is actualized by though and actualizes objects by understanding them (makes them fully real)...

[Ioannakis]

Thinking in this sense is also perceiving, for Aristotle. For whom there is also an appetite or desire for understanding, and in the world a desire to be thought and understood, since each thing yearns to be most fully what it is.

Clearly I should stop here. I just wanted to indicate how the comparison, far from being glib, is an informative one.

John, thank you very much for these lectures. All of them are rich.

Ps. Nor am I a Steinerian, to anticipate.

[Ioannakis]

If anyone is interested to understand how the above is relevant to contemporary issues in epistemology and metaphysics, see the work of Jonael Schickler (Metaphysics as Christology: An Odyssey of the Self from Kant and Hegel to Steiner), who had he lived would very likely have brought about a significant shift in our understanding of the importance of 'Geist' in the contemporary world.

John: Schickler's mythology is a fascinating one, being an account of philosophy's embodiment/incarnation

[johndavidebert]

Thanks for the intelligent comments. I'll look up Schickler.

--Ebert

[gjbanson]

@KabouterKlus I get an ego hit when I find something to discredit someone held up to me. I am punk in that way. However, I have a story for you. A mother made a sweet rice pudding with cardamon seeds for dessert. Her son's thought the seeds were stones and wouldn't eat the pudding. The mother took out the seeds, trying to explain that they were not stones. When the mother gave the pudding back to the child, he still wouldn't eat it!

[johndavidebert]

But I'm not a Steinerian in any way, shape or form. I do not 'believe' in Steiner, nor do I 'believe' that what he said about the spirit world is 'true' in any literal sense. I read Steiner the way I would read Tolkien: as an imaginative description of the cosmos pictured in mythological terms and as an antidote to the fact worship of 'objective science,' which has stripped the human being of his spiritual worth and capacities. Steiner is great mythology, not literal fact.

[Fant00mRecords]

Mythology? Abstract ideas and philosophical insights are nver literal facts.

Steiner uses many scientific facts though. Steiner believes in re incarnation, and many of the great minds were Christians, who believe in god. I'd rather compare the bible to Tolkien than R S

[DrKaoliN]

There is no such thing as Steinerianism, nor did he have any 'believers' among his genuine students.

Saying that ("Steiner is great mythology, not literal fact. "), you only prove that you don't understand a word of his works.

So I guess you discard Steiner's view in regard to Oswald Spengler's "Decline of the West".

[johndavidebert]

This comment seems to imply that I'm attacking Steiner, which is of course ridiculous. These lectures are a celebration of his work and vision. This comment also implies that no one else is allowed to lecture on Steiner other than those whom the Steinerians have officially approved. This, too, is ridiculous. Moreover, it smacks of the dogmatism and intolerance of a cultic mentality, which I am certain that Steiner would not have approved of.

[freedomphilosophy]

You misunderstand. I am a critic of Steinerism. Steiner is depicted as a clairvoyant mystic who gave far out readings of the spiritual world. Readers end up being merely believers. This is the outdated Steiner. Steiner's actual path, relevant today, was the deepening of scientific thinking presented in his 'Philosophy of Freedom'. The study of this book is a schooling in thinking that results in a person having their own intuitive insights rather than having to "believe" in his later writings.

[DrKaoliN]

I cannot help admiring those who embrace the "Philosophy of Freedom", but I also cannot help saying that there is absolutely no incompatibility between Steiner's earlier works and his later ones, if both are rightly understood.

Plus he never claimed belief. He also repeatedly emphasized that the Goetheanum is not a temple, but a school of spiritual science.

[DrKaoliN]

I can hardly imagine that someone acquainted with his former works would imply that belief is the only faculty on which his anthroposophic worldview can be sustained. Quite the opposite, without a penetrating thinking, his works become either excellent sleeping pills, or just a pile of nonsense.

[DrKaoliN]

Sorry, I meant "acquainted with his later works".

[freedomphilosophy]

Remember this Rudolf Steiner quote for this or any other lecture series about Steiner:

"Too many seeking experience in all sorts of unclear paths, nebulous mystical approaches, attached themselves to what anthroposophy was trying to achieve in clarity.

This group of people attracted the attention of a lot of ill-disposed persons who now attack what people with whom I have no connection have been saying.

But in these attacks they attribute to me what these vague mystics have produced."

[RedUncle]

this is very interesting!